One civilian/ President/Ex-President (Person A) and one civilian/Congressman/Vice President/Ex-VP at the time (Person 2)both were in possession of Classified docs. One of them had the Docs for 6 years before they were discovered. The other had the Docs in a known and secure place for almost two years. Which person had the Classified material the least amount of time? A? B? This is actually a hard question for the ignorant folks.
The dog ate my homework? . . . Wha? . . . that doesn't work? How bout I ran out of fingers? . . . that either? Hmm . . .
Alfred E. Neuman! I win. Give me the prize! Now! I mean it! Now! Savvy? (Plus, I posted using a 17 syllable 5 Line Haiku. Clever, huh?)
Al-1 fred-2 E-3 Neu-4 man-5 I-6 win-7 Give-8 me-9 the-10 prize-11 Now-12 I-13 mean-14 it-15 Now-16 Sav-17 vy-18 KRAP!!!! AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!! Fix; eliminate #16. Thus, math honor is upheld. NANANANANA.....
Sorry, that is incorrect. The correct answer is "B." Biden was in possession of Top Secret Docs for around SIX YEARS! The Archives was probably not aware of this. They dealt with Ukraine, Iran, and Russia. He took the documents ON PURPOSE (not a mistake which would not change the law) to write a book.
A President can also declassified documents of which I believe, not 100 percent on this recollection, that Trump stated he did and they were for his Presidential library that he most likely have built from his will.
BIDEN WAS ONLY THE VP AND EX-VP when he broke the law regarding the docs. I'll save his other crimes for later. I suspect that Obama will need to lie to save Biden's butt. And as a good puppet master, he will save his puppet. Unfortunately, the democrats in power and the media covering them believe that anything goes that will get to their desired outcomes. Trump was the POTUS. Here is another thing I didn't know. Past Presidents have access to current Classified Stuff! Additionally, Trump asked for a SCIF at his residence. HIS REQUEST WAS DENIED by the democrats! It is my understanding that other POTUS have been allowed to have one.
One would think that a past President would be referred to as an unofficial advisor if that President had experience with a current power or situation. So keeping them updated would make sense. But that would mean people in power who actually care about doing what is best for Americans and for freedom in general.
All partisan foolishness aside. Being the eternal optimist, I have always believed that those at the top had this nations best interests at heart. Sadly, it does appear in recent years that breaking the will of a great nation is a personal agenda. I am just mystified at the state we have allowed them to place us in.
Until the citizenry learns to scrutinize what the media says, and hold them accountable when they mislead instead of passively accepting their content, we are doomed for more of the same.
The citizenry does not care. That's why they are still ignorant. They believe the media is middle of the road and does not lie or cover up. The media is made up of children from the Liberal non-educational system and gleefully keeps citizens in the dark. Eventually like now, they are being forced to pass some info so they don't look stupid.
Has anyone here read Manufacturing Consent? Seems like the mass media critical types here would enjoy it. It gives an analysis of how mass media in the United States can act as propaganda. Though it's a bit dated (pre-internet) many of the principles still apply.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Unfreedom-of-the-Press/Mark-R-Levin/9781476773469 And for those who wish to read the ENTIRE STORY of the press in this country from Colonial Days to Modern Times, this is a very informative eye-opener.
Funny enough, manufacturing consent would argue your book is propaganda. The author was a government official, and more importantly, cannot have an objective view as a member of the news media himself.
GeneWright, posted: "Funny enough, manufacturing consent would argue your book is propaganda. The author was a government official, and more importantly, cannot have an objective view as a member of the news media himself." BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Typical comment from the ignorant left. Condemn anything and everything when you have not seen it, listened to it, or read it! Who cares who wrote it. Rules for Radicals is a great book and the authors KNEW THE SUBJECT INSIDE AND OUT! News flash before the monkeys pile on: I should think that the best book about the media would be written by someone in the media. I also think that an educated person would wish to read all of the many NYT Non-Fiction Bestselling author's books if they wished to keep informed. Get one. they are cheap and a good read. It will help you understand propaganda in the modern media when you see it.
One of the central dogma's of Manufacturing Consent is that who is doing the writing is critical to understanding their motivations in writing it. I disagree, you can get a more objective viewpoint from the outside. Especially because your author is still trying to sell their media persona. It's like how political scientists don't become politicians because it inherently biases their work. You can't write objectively about a subject while actively profiting directly from it. ALL of them? or just the ones that agree with your worldview? Here's the top 2 non-fiction ones right now. I await your review
@GeneWright Get with the program. He was on the list in the past The present list adds nothing to the subject. Levin has had all his books become best sellers - even the one about his dog. Additionally, your humble opinions about something you have no knowledge of are as worthless as that notorious LYING IGNORANT member UNTIL YOU READ THE BOOK. PS I believe Prince Harry acknowledged his co-author. Does she?
